In Re Hatten’s Estate Facts: The Monstead family help an man with no family for a number of years. His name was Hatten. They did various services for him and included him as one of their family. He went t their house without being invited and sat for dinners often. On numerous occasions Hatten expressed his gratitude and said that he would compensate them for their kindness. AT one point Hatten went to the home of the Monstaeds and wrote up a promissory note. On the note he gave them 25K with interest for what they had done for him to be taken from his estate. Issue: Was there sufficient consideration? Holding: Yes Reasoning: There was consideration. the court ruled that when there is a received value on the part of the promisor that gives rise to a moral obligation on his part to pay for it, there is sufficient consideration. Mills v. Wyman: Held that the promise of D was without consideration since P’s services were given without the request of D. ( A modern court might hold that there need not be moral consideration because it was a moral obligation). Web v. McGowin: This was held for P. D promise was enforceable because D had received a benefit and the P received a detriment. “Where a material benefit has been received and the recipient voluntarily promises to pay for this past benefit, the promise is said to be enforceable of moral obligation. Benefits done Not requested = probably no recovery Benefits done requested == probably recovery Acts done as favor or gift not enforceable Acts done not requested benefit substantial = probably would enforce because benefit was so great. Restatement Gift no recovery - does not distinguish between requested and nonrequested benefits. will not be enforced as a gift AND will not enforce if value is disproportionate to the benefit.